House Committee to Hold Internet Gambling Hearing 6/8

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
I enjoyed the hearing, however, I am not sure what is next.

However, what I think this does is stall any regulations in the near future. And for the moment, the status quo is "tolerable," which is fine by me.

Mega

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

This should take pressure off Gonzales and Paulson, as the claim that "millions of Americans are demanding tough regulations" wasn't borne out as todays meeting.

We should write to them today and tell them we were impressed by what we heard at the hearings. We should also write to our congressmen with the same.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
will the next meeting involve different witnesses. possibly more representatives?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't be so sure there will be a "next meeting." As I understand it, they often have these public hearings so that they can bring forward legislation with some legitimacy (i.e., make it appear that it has been considered and researched and differing view points were given the opportunity to state their position). I believe the next step is for a bill to be drafted, considered and moved through committee, and eventually (hopefully) make it to the floor of the House.

[RGL]

FWIW, here is a comment on the Bible and gambling from a quick search:

While the Bible does not explicitly mention gambling, it does mention games of "luck" or "chance." As an example, casting lots is used in Leviticus to choose between the sacrificial goat and the scapegoat. Joshua cast lots to determine the allotment of land to the various tribes. Nehemiah cast lots to determine who would live inside the walls of Jerusalem and who wouldn’t. The apostles cast lots to determine the replacement for Judas. Proverbs 16:33 says, “The lot is cast in the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord.”

Would love to see more on this topic.

[TheEngineer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
seemed like it went very well. i still think LaTourrette will cave. He actually asked logical questions about protecting youngsters and helping out with people that have real problems. I think there could be a large group of representatives that could be swayed with solid banning of underage players and possibly some kind of 'speed control'. Not sure how that will work for the nosebleed stakes guys though.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I was saying. I don't think he'll cave, but at least he didn't show up to the hearing with the FOF talking points like Bachus did. He asked what I thought were well-reasoned questions. Bachus asked only either leading questions or anti-gambling (as Bachus says, "illegal Internet gambling) speeches disguised as questions. I'm glad he's a tool. Looked good for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

will the next meeting involve different witnesses. possibly more representatives?

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope this one went well enough to drive scheduling of another meeting (or a committee vote). Maybe our opponents on the committee will want a rematch.

Frank was well-briefed on the details.

[jschaud]

was Gresham Barrett 'invited' to this meeting? or was this some smaller subcommittee type action. i'm in his district and i plan on sending him a chastising letter for no-showing.

[tautomer]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow this old woman is like the Oracle from the Matrix or something.

Awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Awesomeness

[1p0kerboy]

Those interested in gambling and the bible, I suggest the parable of the talents which appears in several of the gospels, where the servant is rewarded for investing money.

[Skallagrim]

All in all, a good first round for us.

There are politics, and there are politics. The reps from deeply religious conservative districts (Bachus, e.g.) are never going to change, they know where their votes come from. Likewise, the Reps from more personal freedom loving districts, (R. Paul of course) are already committed.

Its moving the ones in the middle that makes all the difference and this hearing was a good start to get those in the middle moving our way.

The mantra is simple: most internet gamblers get along just fine and dont need government involvement at all, for the small portion who will develop problems, the technology exists to prevent most of the harm, certainly far better than prohibition ever will. And you can get some new revenue too.

If that doesnt carry the day, we switch to plan B - Skill games are different, almost everyone understands that its foolish for your 5 foot 4 inch overweight son to spend lots of money on hopes of becoming an NBA star, but that aslo doesnt mean he shouldnt be allowed to shoot hoops in the backyard or that the real athletic types shouldnt try for the NBA. Poker should be treated similarly.

Anyways, we ARE gaining ground; time for a little hope.

Skallagrim

[permafrost]

[ QUOTE ]
so wait, what happens now? When do the vote? and more importantly, when can I Play on Party?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your state will decide if you can play on Party.

But before that, the regulators must allow Party to get a license.

But before the regulators, the prez must sign the bill.

But before that, the Senate has to pass the bill.

But before that, the Senate committee has to pass it.

But before that, the house has to pass the bill.

But before that, it has to get out of committee. And other things I'm probably forgetting.

Not a marathon, more like a triathlon.

[mshalen]

If all Americans were forced to watch their representative at work on CSpan then every incubant would be thrown out.

To paraphrase Bill Buckley: I would rather be ruled by the first 412 people in the phone book then the shmucks currently serving in the house.

Barney Frank's entire career has been based on the idea that the government is smarter than the individual and should tell them what to do. Now he does a 180 and agrees (probably for the first time) with Ron Paul.

The level of intelligence displayed by the witnesses was far above the level of the Congressmen.